|
APPLIES TO
|
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Effective January 1, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) removed the incentives section of its final regulations on wellness programs under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC regulations previously addressed how the ADA and GINA applied to employee health and wellness programs, including set limits on incentives that could be offered by wellness programs (e.g., for submitting to a wellness medical exam).
In light of the EEOC’S actions, employers are now faced with limited guidance on how financial incentives may be offered as part of their wellness programs. The EEOC stated new proposed regulations may be forthcoming, but are unlikely to be released before June 2019. Employers should review wellness programs with legal counsel and look for the EEOC’s updated guidance in the future.
Action Items
- Have wellness programs reviewed for compliance.
- Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
New Jersey: Expanded Family and SAFE Leave and Disability Benefits
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Certain Employers with NJ Employees
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The New Jersey Governor recently signed legislation to expand the New Jersey Family Leave Act, Temporary Disability Leave Act, and Security and Financial Empowerment (SAFE) Act. The following is a summary of key changes.
Read more
New York, NY: Commission Publishes Enforcement Guide on Hair-Based Race Discrimination
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with New York, NY Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 18, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) protects individuals from discrimination based upon hairstyles associated with racial, ethnic, or cultural identities. In February, the Commission tasked with enforcement of the NYCHRL published guidance on these protections. Specifically, hair-based discrimination is defined as a subset of race discrimination, pointing to historical bans on natural hair or hairstyles typically associated with the Black community (e.g., afros, cornrows, locs, etc.). Employers should beware of dress and grooming policies that (intentionally or unintentionally) violate this right. The guidance provides examples of unlawful grooming requirements, including:
Read more
Washington: Employers Have Strict Liability for Employees’ Discriminatory Conduct Toward Non-Employees
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Public Accommodation Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 31, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Floeting v. Group Health Collective, the Washington Supreme Court stated that employers are strictly liable for discriminatory conduct employees engage in toward non-employees in places of public accommodation, even if the employer did not know about the behavior. Places of public accommodation are defined as all facilities used by the public, such as banks, hotels, restaurants, medical provider’s offices, education facilities, etc.
Read more
March Updates
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
NEW E-Verify and EEO-1 Deadlines – Fallout from the Government Shutdown
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers Using E-Verify or Subject to EEO-1 Reporting
EFFECTIVE
January 28, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The recent partial government shutdown touched everyone in one way or another. For employers, this meant no access to E-Verify and EEO-1 reporting.
Read more
Arbitration Agreement Update: Who Decides Arbitrability of a Claim?
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in two scenarios where it could and could not enforce an arbitration agreement. On January 8, 2019, in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the Supreme Court stated that a court cannot decide what claims are covered under an arbitration agreement where the agreement states that the arbitrator must decide.
Read more
NLRB Changes Independent Contractor Test Again
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers Subject to the NLRA
EFFECTIVE
January 25, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a board decision in SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., stating a return to the common law “entrepreneurial opportunity” analysis for independent contractors and rejecting the previous FedEx Home Delivery “economic realities” test. The common law analysis looks at a variety of factors, with no one factor being decisive: (1) extent of control, (2) engagement in a distinct occupation or business, (3) whether the work in is usually done with or without supervision from the employer, (4) skill required, (5) who supplies the tools and place of work, (6) length of time employed, (7) payment by time or by job, (8) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, (9) whether there is a “master and servant” relationship, and (10) whether the worker is or is not in business.
Read more
D.C. Circuit: Browning-Ferris Joint-Employer Standard Upheld
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with DC Employees
EFFECTIVE
December 28, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Browning-Ferris Industries v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit Court stated that the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) standards of “right to control” and “indirect control” are appropriate factors to determine joint-employer status on a fact-based, case-by-case basis.
Read more
EEOC Abandons the Incentives Sections of their Final Wellness Regulations
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Effective January 1, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) removed the incentives section of its final regulations on wellness programs under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC regulations previously addressed how the ADA and GINA applied to employee health and wellness programs, including set limits on incentives that could be offered by wellness programs (e.g., for submitting to a wellness medical exam).
In light of the EEOC’S actions, employers are now faced with limited guidance on how financial incentives may be offered as part of their wellness programs. The EEOC stated new proposed regulations may be forthcoming, but are unlikely to be released before June 2019. Employers should review wellness programs with legal counsel and look for the EEOC’s updated guidance in the future.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
Seventh Circuit: ADEA Disparate Impact Protections Do Not Apply to Job Applicants
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 23, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the disparate impact protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) do not apply to job applicants who are not current employees. Specifically, Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA specifically states that it applies to “employees.” There, a job posting indicated a position available for an individual with “3 to 7 years (no more than 7 years)” of experience. A 58-year old applicant did not get an interview, and sued for disparate impact under the ADEA because the stated experience requirement necessarily excluded him due to his age.
Read more